Saturday, October 31, 2009

Julie Bindel seems to be the 21st Century's version of Janice Raymond. Raymond, of course, is famous for her nasty diatribe, The Transsexual Empire:the making of the she-male in which she contends that male-to-female transsexuals are part of a plot by men to infiltrate the women's movement. Raymond maintained that transsexualism is based on the "patriarchal myths" of "male mothering," and "making of woman according to man's image." She further claimed this is done in order "to colonize feminist identification, culture, politics and sexuality," adding:

All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive.

Bindel's views are not dissimilar from Raymond's, which should not be surprising since they both approach things from a radical lesbian separatist feminist perspective. The main difference is, Bindel seems unable to let go of her virulent hatred for transsexuals based on the fact that a group of transgender activists successfully blocked her winning an award from the group Stonewall in England.If anything, Bindel is even more strident in her attempts to put an end to the treatment of transsexuals. But what is that drives Bindel's animosity towards people like me?In her most recent attack, published in the November issue of the political and cultural magazine, Standpoint. In an article entitled, "The Operation That Can Ruin Your Life" Bindel states:

Feminists tend to be critical of traditional gender roles because they benefit men and oppress women. Transsexualism, by its nature, promotes the idea that it is "natural" for boys to play with guns and girls to play with Barbie dolls. The idea that gender roles are biologically determined rather than socially constructed is the antithesis of feminism.

In another words, Bindel objects to transsexuals because we don't fit her dogmatic view of how the world should work. The fact that we exist adds evidence to the science that is increasingly proving that the feminist view that gender is socially constructed is simply false. Bindel's position is increasingly unsupportable. In spite of many attempts by radical feminists to raise children to avoid gender stereotypes, the fact is, it is natural for boys to play with guns, and girls to play with dolls. And science has repeatedly shown that such behavior is primarily hard-wired into the brain.To be honest, I find this sort of thing quite amazing. Granted, there are numerous groups who will continue to ignore scientific fact when it contradicts their devoutly held dogmas, and feminism is not immune from this. But it is sad that their doing so does harm others.Another interesting thing about Bindel's writings is how she conflates transsexualism with transgender. It is not clear if Bindel does this deliberately, or if she is really that ignorant of the true nature of transsexualism. And excellent example of this from her article:

A definition of transsexualism used by a number of transsexual rights organisations reads:

Students who are gender non-conforming are those whose gender expression (or outward appearance) does not follow traditional gender roles: "feminine boys," "masculine girls" and students who are androgynous, for example. It can also include students who look the way boys and girls are expected to look but participate in activities that are gender nonconforming, like a boy who does ballet. The term "transgender youth" can be used as an umbrella term for all students whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth and/or whose gender expression is non-stereotypical.

According to this definition, a girl who plays football is trans-sexual.

Okay, this is not remotely a definition of "transsexual." It is, at best, a very loose and extremely broad definition of "transgender." But what I especially odd is that this is more precisely a definition of the rather vague term "gender non-conforming," which is rather ironic since Bindel accuses transsexuals of being rather strongly "gender conforming." And I know of no one who would remotely say that a girl who plays football is "trans-sexual." And surely Bindel knows that not all who identify as transgender claim to be transsexual, and that few who truly are transsexual remotely identify as transgender.Another subject that Bindel obsesses about, but seems to have little actual understanding of, is the rare case where someone regrets having surgery. Again, her writing seems to combine deliberately misleading prose with a lack of actual knowledge of the subject:

A number of transsexuals are beginning to admit that opting for surgery ruined their lives. "I was a messed-up young gay man," says Claudia McClean, a male-to-female transsexual who opted for surgery 20 years ago. "If I had been offered an alternative to a sex change, I would have jumped at the chance, but as soon as I told the psychiatrist I felt trapped in the wrong body, or some such cliché, he was writing out a referral to the surgeon."

Now, first off, regrets have always been an issue, and are not something that have only recently been revealed. Years ago, when I was first beginning transition, I remember seeing a person on one talk show discussing how soon "she" had wanted to try out her new vagina, ignoring the doctors instructions to wait at least six weeks before having sex. A few months later, this same person was on another talk show telling how surgery had been a mistake and expressing deep regrets. Clearly, this was a person who should never have been cleared...but mistakes happen. In the case Bindel uses as an example, the person was clearly an ego dystonic homosexual male, which has long been a strong contraindication to having SRS. Again, no competent doctor would have knowingly approved this person for surgery. In almost every case where regrets occur, the person either bypassed the established Standards of Care, lied to get surgery, or failed to follow their doctor's orders afterwards.Along this same line, Bindel cites a very questionable statistic:

Apart from Thailand, the country with the highest number of sex-change operations is Iran where, homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. When sex-change surgery is performed on gay men, they become, in the eyes of the gender defenders, heterosexual women. Transsexual surgery becomes modern-day aversion therapy for gays and lesbians.

Now, I have seen this claim made numerous places, but I have found nothing to actually back it up. It is true that SRS is not only legal in Iran, but also that it is paid for by the government there. I doubt, however, that many, if any, people come from outside Iran for the surgery. In the United States there are several surgeons who entire practice is dedicated to SRS. What is true is that, tragically, SRS is a way for Iranian homosexuals to escape execution. However, this often turns out to be a fate almost as bad. Again, Bindel seems to show complete ignorance of the realities of the medical treatment of transsexualism. In most of the world, someone who is truly homosexual (for example, a man who actually sees himself as a man, and who desires to have sex with men who see him as a man, and who he sees as men) is not seen as a viable candidate for SRS. While such a situation is relatively rare in more recent times, it was a problem in the past, when being gay or lesbian was not as acceptable. Granted, Bindel does raise on legitimate point. She mentions the case, previous written about here, where a male rapist, who claims to be transsexual (a claim I would be inclined to dispute) has won the right to be held in a women's prison, even though he has not had SRS. Bindel does present the fact is a misleading manner, implying that this person does not wish surgery (that is the basis for his being moved) but otherwise, her point is correct. Such an arrangement is unfair to the women he will be placed among.Bindel also quotes Dr Caillean McMahon, a US-based forensic psychiatrist, who defines herself not as a transsexual but as a "woman of operative history:"

The trans community has an unforgiving global sort of condemnation towards critical outsiders. I have to be suspicious that the insistence of many of those demanding to enter it is not for the purpose of celebrating the spirit and nature of women, but to seek an enforced validation, extracted by force in a legal or political manner.

I agree strongly with Dr. McMahon. This is a very apt description of the transgender viewpoint, which has nothing to do with HBS or transsexualism. I find it interesting that Bindel would find someone who has had SRS that she seems to agree with. Perhaps if she got to know more actual transsexuals or better, those who actually have HBS, she might realize that she is misjudging the few based on the behavior of the many.Bindel's closing remarks, again, show just how little she understand the true nature of transsexualism:

In a world where equality between men and women was reality, transsexualism would not exist. The diagnosis of GD needs to be questioned and challenged. We live in a society that, on the whole, respects the human rights of others. Accepting a situation where the surgeon's knife and lifelong hormonal treatment are replacing the acceptance of difference is a scandal. Sex-change surgery is unnecessary mutilation. Using human rights laws to normalise trans-sexualism has resulted in a backward step in the feminist campaign for gender equality. Perhaps we should give up and become men.

It is clear, though obviously not to Bindel, that her argument is with science, and not those who are truly transsexual. It is also obvious that much of her ire should be directed towards those who are transgender and not transsexual or HBS. Being "equal" does not change the need to be whole. Transsexualism or HBS is not about being "different." It is not about men wishing to pretend to be women. It is about having a brain that is female in a body that is male. It is ironic that Bindel, who seems to have such a dislike for men, thinks all of the problems are simply based on culture and upbringing. She does not understand that there are real differences in men and women. Such differences do not negate the need for equality. But trying to negate those differences will not result in equality, but instead will lead to a new form of repression. Women should be free to be women. Not as second class citizens, but as equals, And men should be free to be men, not as superiors, but again as equals. And that should be true regardless of how are bodies are.

On the English transgender web site, Bird of Paradox, the author is again having a hissy fit over the "Reclaim the Night" march that will be held by the London Feminist Network next month. Now, this march, which is a protest against violence against women, is specifically "women only." What I find absolutely hilarious in all of this it the fact that LFN says it is open to women, including the phrase “women of all backgrounds.” Now, as a post-op survivor of HBS I would have no problems with that. It says women only, and I am a woman. But that is not good enough for some transgender activists. It does not specifically state that it is trans-inclusive.I notice specifically it says nothing like “women born women,” which is, of course, the “nice,” politically correct, way of saying “no transsexuals.” So, the fact that they don’t single out transsexuals, and specifically say, “transsexuals are welcome too,” in effect saying that you might not really be women, but are welcome anyway, offends the author? Go figure. I would be more offended at the suggestion that because I had HBS that I had to be specifically told that it was okay for me to identify as a woman.Now, personally, I would not join them because I don’t agree with all of their views, but it would not be because I am not really a woman and feel I need a special invitation to come.

I just read a rather interesting rant posted on Suzan Cooke's transgender blog "Women Born Transsexual." It was written by Curtis E. Hinkle who is the founder of OII, a group that pushes identity politics for people who are intersex.Mr. Hinkle is outraged that Fox News, which he proudly proclaims has blocked from his TV, had a commentary on the hate crimes legislation that mentioned "hermaphrodites" which those who are into intersex identity politics consider an insult. (You can't have a good identity politics movement without at least one word you find to be a terrible insult.)I was reading the commentary, wondering who at Fox News might have written such a thing, when I suddenly realized the joke. It was from the late night comedy news show, Red Eye. The phrase that gives it away:

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably racist.

At one time, it was "...then you are worse than Hitler," but that was changed to the current one. Taking this seriously, is akin to quoting something from "The Onion" as an actual news story. That's the problem with people caught up in identity politics. They have no sense of humor. And it leads them to overreact to bad jokes every time.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

The next transgender myth I want to examine is a very popular one, transphobia.Now I am sure that some are already thinking, "What?!?!" The term "transphobia" has become so common we tend to take it for granted. But let's take a closer look at this term and consider where it comes from, and what it is supposed to mean.Now, let me begin by saying that I am not denying that there are people who are have very strong negative opinions about those who are transgender, as well as those who are transsexual or who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome. But, does this concept that has come to be labeled "transphobia" really exist?Well, as they say, the beginning is the best place to begin. Before there was "transphobia" there was "homophobia." Originally, "homophobia" was a legitimate term which referred to cases where someone was so fearful of their own possible feelings of being attracted to someone of the same sex that they would react violently to anyone who was perceived as being homosexual. Something like what is know commonly referred to as the "gay panic defense," or the "trans panic defense" when it is raised during a criminal trial.People started using the term "homophobia" as a bit of a taunt. Anyone who did not agree with the gay rights agenda might be accused of being secretly homosexual and making a big show to cover up that fact. Then, over time, the original meaning was lost and "homophobic" simply became a sort of short hand term for anyone who did not agree with the gay political agenda. Soon, it was being used as a way of silencing opponents much as some use the terms "bigot" and "racist."Then, as the effort to add "transgender" to Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual started in earnest, some transgender activists started trying to imitate the tactics of the LGB movement. So, suddenly a new word, "transphobia" was made up, and it was used much as "homophobia" was being used...as a club word that could be used to attack people who did not share a particular political view. It is especially common to use this against transsexuals and those with HBS, by accusing them of "internalized transphobia."So, the bottom line is, "transphobia" is a misnomer. It is not an irrational fear, and therefore it is not a phobia. It is simply a made up word that is, first and foremost, a rather silly attempt to copy the word "homophobia," which is a concept that has lost its original meaning. "Transphobia" is nothing more than a word used to attack those who either do not agree 100% with the gender fascists, or who have the misfortune to incur their wrath. Simply put, it does not really exist. As I said, there certainly is real prejudice against transgender people. Some of it is justified, much of it is not. Just as there is real prejudice against transsexual, though there, quite frankly, legitimate justification is harder, if not impossible, to find.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

In what has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I have read in a long time, "Autumn" Sandeen attacks Seventeen Magazine in an article entitled "Is It Transphobia Or Just Bad Journalism At Seventeen Magazine?" The short answer to Mr. Sandeen's question is, "neither," though, of course, he does not see it that way.The subject of the article is a piece in Seventeen entitled, "My Boyfriend Turned Out To Be A Girl." It is about a teenage girl who became involved with someone she thought was her first true love, and he turned out to be an FTM transsexual. The article is actually very well written, and even includes the disclosure that had he been truthful, she would have stayed with him. In truth, the young FTM was quite a jerk, and treated the girl rather badly.So, why is Mr. Sandeen all hot and bothered, especially given that he admits this person was a jerk?

The gist of the article, from the article headline to the bolded and highlighted text, seemed to be that female-to-male transsexuals are really females who are deceiving others.

Well, since this person is a pre-op female to male, and since he did deceive this young woman, I think that is pretty much what the article would have to be about unless it was fiction. It says nothing about FTMs or transsexuals in general. It only deals with this one person, and this one relationship and the experience of this one young lady.In addition, Mr. Sandeen seems upset that they did not, instead, write about how terrible transgender people have it. The simple fact is, if one is pre-op, then one should be upfront as soon as possible in a relationship. In this case, the deception, and I am sorry, but that is what it was, goes on for a long time. It became revealed with the young FTM became abusive and was arrested by the police.I mean really, Mr. Sandeen is so distraught over things like the Angie Zapata case, but at the same time wants encourage the very behavior that leads to such tragedies. In this case, there was no violence, except on the part of the FTM. And that lead to his being outed. If the situation had been the reverse, and it had of been another young MTF, it could have ended differently.

No, Mr. Sandeen would rather see another beloved trans martyr than to fail to push the latest transgender myth...that one changes sex by simply saying one is the new sex. I shall deal with that in depth in an upcoming article. But for now....

Thursday, October 22, 2009

I am starting a new series of articles that will look at various "myths" perpetuated by the transgender community. By "myths" I mean those false beliefs that they cling to desperately, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.I'm going to start with a common one. Many will claim that being associated with lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people has not caused harm to those who are HBS, true transsexuals, or classic transsexuals. This is based on the argument that "transphobia" existed before the "T" (which they insist includes transsexuals) was added to the LG and B. The oft cited example is Janice Raymond's nasty book, The Transsexual Empire. Now. there are several problems with this argument. First, it is simply a straw argument. No one would deny that what they term "transphobia" (a silly term that will be dealt with at another time) existed before the rise of the modern transgender movement. That is not the point. The issue is whether or not being associated with transgender, and thus the LGBT has mad things worse for transsexuals.And the answer to this is a quite resounding yes!The ways in which transsexuals have been harmed are numerous. First off, the nature of transsexualism has become distorted by association with both homosexuality and with the various factions that comprise the "transgender." Transsexualism, or preferably HBS, is not about sexual orientation. A person with HBS might well be straight, lesbian, gay, or bisexual. But, because of the association with the LGBT, many see transsexualism as just an advanced form of homosexuality. The next way that the association has harmed us, is the fact that we become connected to behaviors that have nothing at all to do with true transsexualism or HBS, such as transvestism, crossdressing, drag queens, genderqueer, etc. These share nothing in common with transsexualism.We are also harmed by often being associated with political and social views that we may strongly disagree with. For example, transgender is increasingly associated with ideas like gender deconstruction and that gender can be changed at will. These are not only false, but are harmful to transsexual seeking their rights. If gender is meaningless, and can be changed at will, then it can be argued that transsexuals should either just express their gender without seeking surgery (thus countering the argument that the surgery should be covered by insurance) or that we should simply just choose to go back to being the gender associate with our birth sex. One has to wonder if people even think before they spout off some of this silliness?Finally, transsexuals are harmed by the forcible denial of their identities by many transgender activists, or by having their experiences co-opted by those who wish to falsely claim to be "the same as transsexuals," or who even make such silly claims as being "non-op" transsexuals, which is basically an oxymoron.So, yes, in spite of the claims of transgender mythology, those who are transsexual, or who have HBS, are harmed by being associate with the LGBT.

The goal of tattooing was never beauty. The goal was change. From the scarified Nubian priests of 2000 B.C. to the tattooed acolytes of the Cybele cult of ancient Rome, to the moko scars of the modern Maori, humans have tattooed themselves as a way of offering up their bodies in partial sacrifice, enduring the physical pain of embellishment and emerging changed beings.

Despite the ominous admonitions of Leviticus 19:28, which forbade the marking of one's flesh, tattoos had become a rite of passage shared by millions of people in the modern age - everyone from clean-cut teenagers to hard-core drug users to suburban housewives.

The act of tattooing one's skin was a transformative declaration of power, an announcement to the world: I am in control of my own flesh. The intoxicating feeling of control derived from physical transformation had addicted millions to flesh-altering practices... cosmetic surgery, body piercing, bodybuilding, and steroids... even bulimia and transgendering. The human spirit craves mastery over it's carnal shell.

Now, it is arguable that Dan Brown's assessment of "transgendering" has some accuracy, but that is not my focus today. Instead, I want to look at what Browning has to say about the topic, and what it shows about how truly clueless Mr. Browning is about the topic of transsexualism.In an attempt to make the case that perhaps, because society is now more tolerant of body modifications like tatooing and piercing of various body parts, they might also be more tolerant of "transgender" he makes the following statement:

Leaving aside the obvious simplification that arises from reducing gender reassignment surgery to tattoos and piercings (after all, how many people have committed suicide because they couldn't get their nipple pierced?) or the fact that some transgender folks never have surgery, the line of reasoning is quite compelling.

And here we see his basic cluelessness, and perhaps even more so, the basic cluelessness of those who push the belief that transsexuals are also "transgender." Yes, many have committed suicide because they could not get sex affirmation surgery (no Mr. Browning, surgery does not reassign gender), and yes, transgender folk do not have surgery. And there lies the difference Browning refuses to see.True transsexuals, classic transsexuals, people with HBS, have a very real need to correct their bodies so they can live normal and happy lives. Transgender people may choose to pursue surgery for other reasons, but regardless of whether they seek surgery, or not, they are not seeking to be normal, and if denied surgery, they are not at all likely to commit suicide (except, perhaps by accident when an attempt to force a doctor's decision goes awry).

There really is a difference. But even when it is right in front of Browning's nose, he chooses to ignore it, and blather on as though he actually has a clue.

A lot of "transgender" activists have little respect for Christianity. Some are downright hostile. And that, of course, is their right. Granted, that makes them nothing more than bigots, but as offensive as it is, there is pretty much an absolute right to be a bigot. But, there is also an absolute right to be offended at bigotry. Not, of course, that the bigots will recognize, but that is another discussion.I was reading a blog named "Questioning Transphobia" which is a typical gender fascist sort of blog. There I found a post entitled "Trans Virgin Marys and other such heresies." It is about an LGBT fund-raising calendar published in Spain that features photos of "trans women" posed as the Blessed Virgin. That, in and of itself, might not be so bad, but some of the images are somewhat pornographic, and the whole thing comes across more as a parody than a serious attempt to reverently portray a Christian icon.I left the following comment at "Questioning Transphobia," but apparently it is not acceptable to the moderator:

As a woman born with HBS (I do NOT identify as a trans woman, just as a woman) who happens to be a devout Anglo-Catholic, I do find this calendar to be highly offensive. Not so much because the models are trans, but because it is clearly intended to offend people of faith.

The importance of the Blessed Virgin is not that she has a womb, but that she was willing to be obedient to God in the face of possible persecution for bearing a child out of wedlock. She suffered tremendously to bring God into human form so He could be the bearer of the sins of the world.

I rather suspect that it probably was not accepted because I openly state that I had HBS, and that I do not identify as "trans." This whole mess strikes me as very similar to the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," the infamous band of drag queens that are a fixture here in San Francisco. While the certainly deserve credit for the efforts they make to raise money, they also seem to go out of their way to be as offensive to the devout as possible. Their annual Easter celebration always features, among other things, "The Hunky Jesus" competition, which features gay men, often strapped to crosses, competing in a sort of bizarre beauty contest.Now, the "Sisters" have a right to their views, and I have a right to be offended by them. Again, much of what they do is commendable. But how they do it can be quite offensive. Not that they seem to care one bit.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

There was a recent posting on Bilerico entitled "What Barack Obama really said about transgender rights." It was in reference to his recent speech to the Human Right Campaign. The bottom line is, he didn't really say much of anything, but that is not really what this article is about.

Like many Bilerico postings, what is really interesting shows up in the comments. And like just about any comments on an issue involving those who are transgender, the most aggressive of the gender fascists, "Monica" Helms is sure to show up. And he did.

And as is often the case with any discussion on Bilerico, someone who does not adhere to the official party line, and who has not been tossed off of Bilerico for actually making valid arguments against that party line, will show up, and ask something like:

I do not understand the intentional conflation of these two very different states, one a medical condition, requiring medical treatment, and the other an adopted identity that, there seems to be general agreement, does not require medical treatment.

I don't understand why it is necessary to say both are the same, why it is demeaning to one or the other just to point out the differences, and the different needs, and why the emphatic response that this differentiation is politically imprudent.

Now, that seems pretty straightforward. A lot of us don't understand these things, or more to the point simply do not agree with these positions, but we are open to discussing them rationally with those who do push these positions. So, are they willing to engage in such a discussion? Let's see what Mr. Helms has to say on the matter:

You don't "understand," because you refuse to understand. SOP.

Now, quite frankly, that strikes me as a pretty dismissive and arrogant response. Mr. Helms seem to expect everyone to just blindly accept his "transgender dogma," without question. But of course, some don't:

I don't understand because I don't subscribe to your ideology.

And it angers you that you can't impose it on me--and others.

Your ideology is fading.

Too true. Helms cannot see that people just might disagree with him. Worse, he simply cannot accept that disagreement. But he is not the only one, here is what "Angela Brightfeather," born Jim Sheedy, who spent most of his life as a successful businessman after a seven year stint in the Army as a drill instructor, has to say:

"And it angers you that you can't impose it on me--and others.

Your ideology is fading."

And now you understand why we are divided and will continue to be so. People like yourself continue to create rungs on the ladder that you climb at the expense of leaving others behind. Very similar to what HRC wanted to do to "Transgender people" in ENDA.

That makes it very difficult to take you seriously since your willing to do to some people in your own community, exactly what your fighting against someone else doing to you.

Now, first off you have to understand, this fellow is Mr. Helm's partner in founding Trangender American Veteran Association. Now, notice how he insists on referring to "people in your own community." Again, no one gets a choice from the gender fascists. You are part of their community, whether you like it, or not. But, then what else would one expect from a drill instructor? And then Helms chimes in with this final bit of arrogance:

She's from Canada. I can't understand why she even cares what happens here in our country. She doesn't have a dog in this hunt. I think you pinpointed the real reason she commented here.

When all else fails, he tries to find some excuse for just dimissing this person's comments as otherwise invalid. As Mr. Helms would say, I guess that SOP, Standard Operating Procedure.

Quite simply, many of us are tired of being used as the transgender community's "beard." We are tired of them trying to hide their fetishtic behavior behind those of us who actually have a medical problem. And we will continue speaking out.

Monday, October 12, 2009

I would like to put forward a simple suggestion that would simplify the issue of a so-called inclusive ENDA. A provision should be added that would include the following provisions:

Full non-discrimination protection would extend only to those who are legitimately transitioning to the other sex. That is, it would apply only to pre-op and post-op transsexuals. No so-called "non-ops" or other variants of transgender would receive full protection.

Full protection would mean that they are allowed, for the purposes of the real life test, to present as the target sex, and with the exception of situations that involve inevitable nudity, would be accorded the full protection of the law.

Anyone else would only be protected with regards to behavior that is not job related. That is, crossdressers would not be allowed to crossdress unless their employer has no problem with it. The same would apply to non-ops, and such. If you are not surgery tracked, you present as your birth sex if that is what your employer says.

To prevent people from simply lying about their situation, the law would also include a provision stating that any and all health plans would have to include coverage for transsexual surgery. If a person does not complete such surgery within a reasonable period of time, and cannot present compelling evidence that there is a medical contradiction, and that they are actively making efforts to remedy the situation if possible (i.e. a diabetic who needs to lower their blood sugar) then they would be deemed to no longer be in transition and their level of legal protection would revert to that afforded crossdressers.

Of course, such a law would be controversial, and it would be vigorously opposed by the Religious Right...but it would do several things to end certain conflicts. It would eliminate the issue of how to deal with crossdressers. Under the current proposed law, they may not even receive this much protection since the law does not include "gender expression." And, it would serve to end the conflict between transsexuals and the rest. Transsexuals would be recognized as needing protection for their transition, and the rest would not be allowed to impose their behavior on people.

Yes, I realize it is probably a silly idea, but it does serve to prove a simple point. The gender fascists want to use transsexuals to get their way. They want to make people think that they simply want to protect people who have a medical issue and who want to correct what is, in effect, a birth defect. But, what they really want is protection for chosen behavior, which is something no law has ever done before. And no, don't give me the argument that protections for religion does that. That is simply absurd.

No, my proposal would expose them for the frauds that they are, as they would never accept such a law, even as they pretend it is really what they want,

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Sometimes I am amazed at just how stupid identity politics can wind up being. A classic example of this is a comment about a posting on a feminist gathering in London. Now, this is the same blog I mentioned earlier, that had the article about the pre-op prisoner, convicted of killing a women while trying to rape her, who is being moved to a women's prison.The comment had to do with the fact that the feminist gathering had cleared up the misconception that "women" Tincludes "post-op transsexuals." This statement now appears on the Feminism in London 09 homepage:

This event is trans-inclusive and transwomen are welcome in the one workshop that is women-only. The Feminism in London organising group would like to apologise for not making this clear from the beginning.

Seems simple enough. But nothing ever is simple when you are dealing with diehard transgenders types.

The person making the comment is upset that they assumed that people would know that "women" includes "transwomen." The fact that the people behind this event chose to not single out "transwomen" as being special, needing to be informed that they are "women" is somehow "cissexism.

So, it is apparently cissexism if you think that "transwomen" are not really women, but it is also "cissexism" if you don't think that, and therefore don't see the need to say anything.

And these fools get all bent out of shape when I say, "I am a woman, not a transwoman." And then they wonder why I want no part of their silliness.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Some people cannot seem to comprehend why those who have HBS or who are true or classic transsexuals might not wish to be included under the "transgender" umbrella. A perfect example of this can be found in "Autumn" Sandeen's posting on Pam's House Blend entitled "Georgia's North Cobb HS Sees Gender Conformity As More Important Than Educating Students." This article concerns a Georgia high school student who "chooses to wear clothes that express himself." Jonathan Escobar wears, among other things, skinny jeans, wigs, "vintage" clothing and makeup. Escobar has an interesting take on how he dresses:

"I don't consider myself a cross-dresser. This is just who I am."

Now, according to remarks from a video linked to from Mr. Sandeen's article, Escobar sees himself as making some sort of artistic statement.Escobar, choose to leave school after being told by an assistant principal that he should dress more "manly" or consider being home-schooled. This came after a fight broke out when one student chose to defend Escobar after another student made derogatory remarks.The school's dress code contains the following provision:

Administrators and teachers shall enforce the dress code Rule, and the principal or designee shall be the final judge as to the appropriateness, neatness and cleanliness of the wearing apparel, or whether or not apparel is disruptive, unsafe, or in violation of the dress code.

Now, obviously, Escobar's "artistic expressions" are intended to garner attention. I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. And it would be impossible to argue that a student who presents as a male, dressed in such style, would not be disruptive.The situation might be different if Escobar identified as a female. If he were transsexual, and was planning to complete transition, and wished to present as a girl, then then I would defend his right to do so. I would hope that such a student would work hard on being as presentable as possible, and would not be "out, loud, and, proud," and quite frankly would be far less inclined to be supportive if such was the situation, as that would raise questions as to actual motivation.No, Escobar simply wants to force an issue...in this case, that students have a right to be different. Rhe problem is, like all rights, that one is limited. I certainly believe students have a right to be individuals. I support student's rights to free speech. I oppose overly restrictive dress codes, though I do see merit in some school's decision to impose a uniform policy. My daughter attended two public schools that had such policies, and the effect was generally positive. In her case, the rules were simple. white or oxford blue tops, and navy or khaki bottoms. There were also, as I recall, some restrictions on footwear to prevent students from expressing gang affiliation in that manner.And, I would like to add, the issue would be the same if a student chose to attend school in any other sort of outlandish costume. For example, if a student decided to attend school dressed in some sort of costume, or period dress.Of course, Mr. Sandeen is beside himself. How dare the school try to insist on some sort of gender conformity! What is lost in this discussion is the fact that schools are specialized institiutions. Some restrictions are necessary to ensure good order to facilitate the learning process. Escobar is not being denied an education. He is simply being denied the right to interrupt other students efforts to learn.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

I read a lot of blogs. Sometimes I find new ones as links on other blogs. One I found this way is "Bird of Paradox," which is listed on Suzan Cooke's blog roll at "Women Born Transsexual." Now, there was a recent article there that dealt with the case in England where a "pre-op transsexual" who is serving a life sentence was moved from a men's prison to a women's one. Part of the reasoning was that being in a men's prison prevented this person from completing the real life test in order to have sex reassignment surgery.Now, this is the sort of thing that might seem worthy of celebration as an enlightened view of the medical necessity of medical treatment for those with HBS. It might, but the facts of the case actually show that it is outrageous.You see, the prisoner in question was convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape. Now, under English law, manslaughter has a different meaning than it does in the United States. The exact details of the case are not clear, but it is entirely possible that the death occurred in the process of attempting the rape, and that the rape is "attempted" only because the victim died before actually being violated. Such a case would be considered "involuntary manslaughter" if the death was not intended, but could still result in a life sentence given the seriousness of the crime in process when the death occurred. This seems the most likely scenario given that the court decision refers to a conviction, not convictions.Now, the author of Bird of Paradox was quite thrilled at the decision. I tried to post a comment pointing out that it seems questionable that a man who is capable of such a violent act is actually a transsexual, and that such a person should definitely not be allowed to be present in a women's prison while still an intact male. My comment was not allowed because I was "ungendering" this person. In a follow-up email, the author pointed out that "Prisoner B" "has been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate which makes her legally a woman." The author simply cannot see that there might be a danger to the women this person might be incarcerated with.Now, as bad as the above is, a newer post on Bird of Paradox serves to show the true absurdity of the transgender mindset. It seems that there is a "Feminism in London 09 event." The author expresses concern that this event might not be welcoming to "trans women."

Any trans woman seeing that will surely already hear the alarm bells ringing. It shouldn’t need restating that the word “woman” defaults to meaning “cis woman” and excludes trans women as a consequence. And “pro-feminist man”? I wonder if that includes trans men?

Now, I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman," so I would not be disturbed by such a remark. If there was something that interested me, I would have no qualms about attending.But what really upsets the author of Bird of Paradox is the fact that a "Rape and sexual violence workshop is for "women born women" only.Now first off, it is just possible that this is simply because it avoids the sticky issue of determining who might, or might not, have a penis. After all, in the transgender mindset, "women can have penises, and even wish to keep those penises." And it is just possible that a group of women discussing an issue like rape and sexual violence might not wish to have men who are capable of engaging in that behavior present simply because they are wearing a dress.Or, just possibly these women see a very simple fact that is obvious to me. Given that the author of "Bird of Paradox" claims to be a spokesperson for "trans women," and given the cluelessness of this person with regards to putting an intact male, convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape in a women's prison, it is just possible that they might possibly view "trans women" as not being welcome in such a discussion. I know I would certainly not want someone with that sort of mentality present.Just to make it clear...rape is not a sexual crime. It is a crime of violence. A rapist uses his penis as a weapon against a woman. It is not about sexual desire, but about a desire for the ultimate domination and humiliation of a woman. In an intimate discussion of this issue, I doubt many women would want someone who is incapable of understanding this to be present.

Friday, October 2, 2009

What is the deal with "Autumn" Sandeen and "weiners?" I mean, several times a week, Mr. Sandeen does an article he calls "This and That," and everyone of them has his "Wiener story of the day." Some of them seem to be pretty boring stuff that he digs up to fit the theme, while others seem to play off of the sexual innuendo that one can derive from the subject.Now, Mr. Sandeen claims to be a "lesbian," so I would not think that he has any intererest in male genitalia as, shall we say, a "consumer." So, again, what is the deal? I suspect this is just some immature humor on the part of an autogynephile who is getting all giggly, and perhaps a bit nervous at the idea of actually giving up a certain body part. In any case, it is a rather bizarre thing, but not really that surprising. I remember one author taking delight in his fellow "transgender" hosting a weiner roast right before his surgery. A truly sick joke that only a man who is making something of a mistake might find joy in.

About Me

Copyright Notice

All original content of this blog is copyright 2017 by J.U. and all rights are reserved.

Comment Policy

Just so there is no confusion, and to make sure that certain gender fascists cannot make false claims, I want to make clear my policy concerning comments. The only rule, and it is a hard and fast one, is "NO INVASIONS OF PRIVACY!" That is, if you post information about me, such as my name, or other private information, your post will not see the light of day. After having a couple of rather nasty trolls try to get around this, I have had to do something I really dislike. Because Blogger does not allow me to block individuals, I now have to approve all comments. But, if your comment does not violate the one rule, it will be approved. So please, don't go running to someone and claim you were censored...especially someone with an established history of censoring posts to prevent actually having to defend his silliness...